As the news stories mount regarding Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s decision to move his chemical weapons stockpile from storage to areas closer to rebel locations, there is one thing the mainstream media is not commenting on: How Syria acquired what is reported to be one of the world’s largest arsenals of bio-chemical WMD? More to the point, what they are not reporting is this: From where did the Assad regime acquire their bio-chemical WMD?In 2006, former Iraqi general, Georges Sada, who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book detailing how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria, before the US-led action to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s WMD threat, by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
As reported in the New York Sun on January 26, 2006:
“‘There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,’ Mr. Sada said. ‘I am confident they were taken over.’”If – and many of us believe when – the Assad regime decides to use these bio-chemical weapons; these WMD, against the rebels, and if the spent shells are found to possess Iraqi markings of manufacture, anti-war Democrats and Progressives here in the United States will have been complicit in what is tantamount to genocide, and all in pursuit of political gain; all so they could arrogantly chant “Bush lied and people died.”
“Mr. Sada’s comments come just more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam ‘transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.’
“Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in 2003...
“The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a UN investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the UN investigation.”
But such is the nature of the Progressive Movement. It seldom considers the repercussions of advancing their agenda at all cost. This time, so as to be able to demonize a sitting president politically, they may have ignored the arming of a tyrant who, today, may very well use WMD attained from another tyrant, against his own people, possibly to the level of use seen against the Iraqi Kurds by Saddam Hussein.
If I were in Harry Reid’s shoes I would be very nervous at the prospect of spent shells proving out Gen. Sada’s claims.
In September of 2002, Reid is quoted as saying:
“Saddam Hussein has, in effect, thumbed his nose at the world community, and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion.”And then in October of 2002, he said:
“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”And then, finally, in 2008, said:
“Now I believe, myself, that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense...and you have to make your own decisions about what the President knows...is that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as is indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”I would also be equally nervous if I were Nancy Pelosi, who in December of 1998,said on her congressional website:
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”And who then said in May of 2004:
“I believe that the president’s leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers...”If I were Mr. Reid, Ms. Pelosi and the entire compliment of Progressives and anti-war Democrats who cheered in politically opportunistic victory when no “stockpiles” of WMD were found in Iraq, the exact group who routinely ignored those who sounded the alarm about the transfer of WMD from Iraq to Syria, I would be very concerned about what may very well be the ultimate vindication of George W. Bush.
I would also be worried about the implications this realization could have on the elections coming in November where Democrats are concerned. I mean, really, it’s one thing to be wrong about the economy, healthcare, immigration, taxes, etc., repeatedly and ad nauseum, but when your radical and rigid Progressive agenda and political opportunism leaves hundreds or thousands of bodies in its wake...